Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Thursday, 29 December 2011

The State fails, so the people pay

Shifting the responsibility for licensing pubs and clubs from magistrates to the State has been the most colossal failure. Magistrates had a fair degree of discretion as befits those to whom we devolve such powers and although a licensing refusal could be appealed it rarely was; once the bench had decided that a landlord or landlady was no longer a fit person to hold a licence, then time was up. The State's petty functionaries could be allowed no such discretion, and licensing decisions based on a tick-list designed to ensure that Moldovan lesbians were treated equally have given us instead High Streets clogged with half-clothed drunks as they spill from places the old magistrates bench would never have permitted.

But rather than admit defeat and retreat the limit of the central State, the government in a move so incomprehensible it must be genius has decided that this 'binge drinking' nuisance will be best solved by imposing a minimum alcohol price on supermarket wine. "Yes, I admit that it hasn't worked and that we've got it wrong. But by leaving it as it is and charging you an additional £700m in tax instead will at least ensure our chums in Diageo continue to do well even if it cripples the micro-brewery in your village"

15 comments:

Furthermore, the really nasty puritan section of the so-called medical profession label ME a "binge" drinker, because I consume (approx) 16-20 pints of beer, and about two bottles of wine a week!Which is complete nonsense.Remember the so-called "safe alchohol/drinking limits" have (excuse me) NO SCIENTIFIC OR REAL FACTUAL BASIS AT ALLThey were made up out of thin air.

Automation, by its very nature, requires rules, assumptions, data, and 'regularisation'. It craves ever more regulation and centralisation to 'perfect' its techniques.

It is a monster.

Cameron's minimum pricing of alcohol, according to the DT, would be in contravention of EU rules. So in pushing this measure through, he'll be cheesing off the EU, the CP right-of-centre and, very possibly, the LibDems.

"Minimum pricing can either be so high that people can't afford it - which leads to other issues such as smuggling etc or just high enough for people to still afford and so in effect becomes a tax rise."

... which rings true. So it's a tax rise then, which will hit the poorest the hardest.

Weird. The political angst that will follow from this hardly seems worth it to me. So what's he up to?

What is one to make of the aggregate of his actions, to date?

It's almost as if he's out to destroy the political system. Almost at every turn, he has defied the logical, reasoned case and has rattled cages needlessly.

Laws already in existence could (indeed SHOULD) put paid to the problems caused by excessive drink but, as ever, our police seem reluctant to enact the laws they are duty bound to uphold. Perhaps we should be taking plod to task for dereliction of duty?

Nothing new about binge drinking, whatever happened to "he drnk himself into an early grave"? and, as has been pointed out, 2-3 pints a night is labelled "binge drinking" which it is not, merely normal for some.

I remember one scare headline "third of teenagers use pubs regularly" with yards of made up statistics but failed to mention that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers too.

Greg T said: "even moderate beer-drinking is being attacked by the christian and muslim puritan bastards."

Twaddle. The whole point of the post is that "cheap" alcohol is being "attacked" (ie taxed) by the bureaucratic state, as a result of the failure of the bureaucratic state, backed up by spurious elfansafety concerns promulgated by the bureaucratic state.